Menu

Japanese Mass Surveillance

There’s the danger here of the state given even more leeway to determine what constitutes “potential crimes.” Japan’s Constitution could also be changed in a terrible way, especially since once a constitutional referendum is started, it’s difficult to tell what might happen.

Instead of spending taxpayer funds on military buildup, Japan should invest those proposed funds into increasingly investigating their political corruption and into technological advancement. The same is true for many other countries.

Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s government passed controversial legislation that gives prosecutors the power to monitor and arrest people in the planning stages of crimes.

As dawn broke in Tokyo on Thursday, bleary-eyed lawmakers voted to pass the so-called anti-conspiracy bill, which the government says is needed to bolster counter-terrorism precautions ahead of the 2020 Tokyo Olympics. Opposition lawmakers pulled out an array of political tricks to delay the vote until morning.

Under the bill, terrorist groups or criminal organizations could be punished for the planning of 277 crimes, which range from arson to copyright violation. Critics say the legislation is vague and could lead to the suppression of civil liberties and excessive state surveillance.

The legislative win paves the way for Abe to push ahead with his long-held ambition to revise the pacifist constitution that has defined Japan’s security policy since World War II. Last month, he proposed an amendment to recognize the existence of Japan’s Self-Defense Forces while maintaining Article 9, which renounces the right to war and prohibits land, sea and air forces. He wants the change to take effect by 2020.

“This fits Abe’s agenda in the run-up to a prospective national referendum on constitutional revision, and Japan’s possible involvement in future wars,” said Koichi Nakano, professor of political science at Sophia University in Tokyo. “Both of these would require new means to control unruly citizens who object to government decisions.”